| Author | Message | ||
     Vaneo1 |
ok heres the skinny... I just got my Buell race kit installed today and it sound throaty! Just the sound I was looking for, not annoyingly loud like the Harleys. Anyway the tech was telling me that these pipes can crack over time because of all the shaking Buells do and the pipe manufacturers are used to making an after market pipe that doesnt go on a bike that shakes so much. Whats up with that?  | ||
| Cataract2 |
Had mine on for over 20,000 miles and only took it off to replace it with a Drummer. No cracks in it to speak of. | ||
| 99buellx1 |
WTF? The Buell Race Kit isn't usually what you would call aftermarket. I haven't heard of anyone having problems with the Race Pipe. Sounds like he dosnt know he's talking about. | ||
| Tommy_k |
Sounds like the tech is cracking over time. Take it off an beat em with it! You'll be fine dude. Only thing I heard of even close to that is the really early Jardines had a chinsy AL bracket that some people had crack...been fixed for awhile though. The Buell piece looks pretty stout to me, as do all the other exhausts out there. .02, TK | ||
| Diablobrian |
Find a new "tech", one with BUELL experience. | ||
| Vonsliek |
that pipes tough man! i crashed w/ only one strap at rear holding it on .. no problemo .. i *crushed* the base of it on the ramp offloading it off truck bed .. no crack, no tears .. nothing. | ||
| Blake |
That would be a valid observation if you owned a tube frame Buell. Their race headers are known to have cracked on occasion. I have two of them. One for the track and one for the welder. | ||
| Vaneo1 |
cool, Tommy he did mention Jardines in our convo maybe thats what he was talking about and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that I misunderstood him and realted what he was saying to the Buell performance pipe. I dont know if its standard protocol but I see he put a third band around this pipe to add support. Anyway, Ill be getting the printouts for the before and after dyno runs soon but the numbers where 74 and 83. Im a little in question here because I was told that this is the horespower gain...But I thought a 12R "puts 103HP in the riders hand" according to Buell. I was told my bike ran low on the dyno for the first run, they'd expected it to be in the 80's w/o the race kit installed. Is this because Ive babied it too much and have never been over 5 grand or 100mph and have got over 6,000 on it? | ||
| Cmm213 |
Your telling us that you have 6000 on the clock and you NEVER have seen a 100mph or 5000 rpm! Man get out there and twist that thing, she sings on the top end. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Vaneo1... the 100 HP spec is "optimistic" to about the same degree as all the other bike makers are "optimistic". Horsepower is not like weight or speed, it is a fussy thing to measure, and there are lots of different ways to measure it, and lots of ways to tweak the results. Given that, the manufacturers (all of them) quote the more optimistic numbers when asked. | ||
| Vaneo1 |
Ah! your right, I have heard that before somewhere, cant remember  | ||
| Diablobrian |
claimed figures are almost always crank HP, or in technical-ese brake horsepower. Rear wheel horsepower (rwhp) is usually 10-15% lower due to drive train losses through the primary, transmission, and belt (or chain). Your results don't sound too far off, but I'd run the top end in and try again. Revving it up a little won't hurt it. (Message edited by diablobrian on January 14, 2006) | ||
| Blake |
Brake horsepower (BHP) signifies the method by which the power is measured, on a brake type dyno where the engine speed can be regulated versus on an intertial dyno. It has nothing to do with where in the drivetrain the power is measured. So you have crank and rear wheel for location and the effects of less or more parasitic losses, respectively and then you have brake and inertial for method of measurement.  The rear tire itself can eat up the HP too, especially with a heavy operator sitting on the bike with the rear tire bearing down on the relatively small drum of an inertial chassis dyno. | ||
| Buelldyno_guy |
Blake, help me out, I always understood that the 103 number was crankshaft measured on a brake machine. The 85 to 95 we see at the rear wheel is measured on an inertia machine without any EC load during the run?… I believe a Brake Dyno where the force is measured using some type of pump to supply the load…. Large radial AC engines measure a calibrated oil pressure load in the prop box and call it Brake Mean Effective Pressure, or BMEP and I think most engine dynos are of this pump type. The two common machines used for motorcycle tuning use inertia to measure force. The DJ-200 measures the time it takes to accelerate the known mass of the drum. The DJ 250 EC Dyno is still an inertia machine, but it allows the tuner to apply a constant or variable Eddy Current load to hold a constant RPM, or speed. It is DJ use of the EC with their Tuning Link SW that allows the Dyno Control and PC to be connected while tuning. ... These machines can be used to accomplish a reverse HP run to measure transmission and chassis loss.. ... At 600cc my Blast made 53 RWHP and 35 ft/lbs of torque. It is now a 650 and Brian is ready to run it on his engine machine which will measure BHP … | ||
| Fusa21 |
There are some other factors that may throw off the numbers that are "Claimed". Some bikes today have Ram-Air boxes, and most dyno rooms around the country are not capable of recreating enough airflow to mimic this very beneficial power source for the motor. I'm sure the claimed numbers could mathematically figure the added power and throw you a whopper of a number for RWHP/BHP. YMMV. | ||
| Blake |
Terry, My understanding of the 103 HP is the same as yours. There are a number of different types of brake dynamometers using different types of "brakes", some hydraulic, some simple disk or drum style, and some like yours at Vallejo that use an electric eddy current brake. I must confess that I was under the impression that one could use the edddy current brake on a DJ250i to conduct brake type measurements. Sure would seem easy enough to implement that feature if it doesn't already exist. Since DJ already provide a closed loop mode that will maintain a constant drum speed, they'd just need to implement a calibrated load-cell to ascertain the torque that the brake is exerting. Sounds easy anyway.  Terry, I'm writing the following also with consideration for the wider BadWeB audience, so please don't be offended by what a fellow engineering professional might find condescending. Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) is a convenient non-real-world parameter used to characterize and compare the relative performance of engines. In physical terms BMEP is the theoretical constant pressure that would be required inside the combustion chamber during the power stroke from TDC through BDC that would produce the same exact torque (and thus the same HP too) that the engine actually produces as measured by a brake dynamometer. BMEP is in effect very similar to expressing Torque (T) in a per cubic inch displacement (D) basis (T/D) in that it eliminates the effect of displacement on the engine torque performance parameter; it literally "takes displacement out of the equation." Using BMEP, one may thus compare the relative performance state of any/all kinds of different IC engines. In mathematical terms![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) for a four stroke engine... BMEP = 4p * Engine Torque / Displacement with the engine torque (T) in units of LB*IN (note that to convert to torque in units of LB*IN simply multiply your LB*FT value by 12) and displacement in units of IN2 Or just use the conventional expression of torque (T) in LB*FT and displacement (D) in IN2, and then BMEP = 48p * T / D BMEP = 151.8*T/D If starting with HP and RPM, one first simply figures the torque (with units of LB*FT) from the old T=HP*5252/RPM equation. If some are wondering, the 4p factor comes from figuring the work performed during the power stroke from the given torque over one complete engine cycle as W = 4pT The 4p is converting one cycle (two revolutions) or 720o of angular displacement into units of radians, the unitless measure of angular displacement required. Wait, you said you were converting to units of radians and then called it "unitless"; what gives? I'm gonna borrow one of my good friend Court's lines here... remind me to tell you some time. For now folks, please just trust me. BMEP is really a physically irrelevant entirely contrived pressure as far as the actual combustion process goes; it's just a fancy way for engineers to compare the relative performance of different engines. Not sure why they didn't just stick to comparing torque per cubic inch (T/D). Maybe they didn't like the units of LB-FT/IN3, which are rather nebulous compared to simple PSI? Found a couple web sites that do a good job of talking about BMEP. And I'm gratified my numbers worked out and agree. It's like I just passed a test question or something.  http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-BMEP.htm http://www.factorypipe.com/Technical/Tech_Articles/BMEP/bmep.html | ||
| Blake |
Couple more links... Long link. http://www.engineersedge.com/engine_formula_automotive.htm | ||
| Buelldyno_guy |
Terry, I'm writing the following also with consideration for the wider BadWeB audience, so please don't be offended by what a fellow engineering professional might find condescending. Great Job and am not offended at all. ... Sometimes all these my apple is bigger than your orange HP comparisons get way out of hand. Thanks again for the post. ... Terry |
